Lawyers and Docs Lie Down Together: Cap Malpractice

As one physician blogger put it, “hell has frozen over”: the North Carolina Medical Society and the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers have both agreed to support a bill that would cap monetary damages at $1 million in some medical malpractice cases.

The bill, modeled after a law recently passed in Washington state, applies to cases where a doctor or hospital is being sued for negligence, and lays out a pathway for plaintiffs and defendants who want to resolve their case through binding arbitration rather than in court, the Associated Press reports. The parties would be able to select their own arbitrator or have one appointed by the court. Monetary damages would be capped at $1 million, and appeals would be limited.

The bill still has to be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor to become law. And it wouldn’t apply to cases where the parties don’t agree to arbitration. Still, it’s pleasantly weird to hear trial lawyers and doctors singing more or less the same tune. “This is just a small baby step,” a medical society lobbyist told the Associated Press. “But it is a small baby step in the right direction.”

Comments (5 of 6)

How many OBGyns pay $160K in premiums, and of those that do, how many claims have they had and how much do they make?

Why would mandatory caps for all claims be real progress? Because lobbyists can decide the value of a case better than the people who actually heard the evidence?

10:55 am May 23, 2007

cantares wrote :

I completely agree with Anonymous. But it will be the lack of doctors which might sway the public that medical malpractice has gotten ridiculous (ObGyns paying 160k in annual medmal premiums? Who can afford this?).

6:59 pm May 22, 2007

Anonymous wrote :

This is risable being touted as a breakthrough - ATLA has dupped this reporter of course - this smoke and mirrors, shuck and jive - this will not impact anything except streamline small claims - lawyers will always insist on taking large damages to juries where they cna evoke emotional decisions based on comments by unqualified paid shill "expert" witnesses-ambulance chasers will never agree to any reform that lowers their take of damages, and that includes caps - this is no concession or improvement-please

2:53 pm May 22, 2007

skeptic wrote :

The docs have been bamboozled as usual. This isn't real tort reform; look to Texas for that. The vultures are laughing all the way to the bank.

2:18 pm May 22, 2007

Sandip Madan wrote :

To "Skeptical's" question above it looks form the AP report that the decision to agree to arbitration will need to be taken at the time of claim (not time of distress.)

But I too am nonetheless skeptical that this is such a big breakthrough. For "big" cases the claimant and lawyers can still opt against arbitration, and then there will be no $1M cap. The small cases would have been settled early under the exisiting system anyway (that's why only 4% go into jury trials.)

The trial lawyers' agreeing to the current arrangement may just be a way to head off imposition of mandatory caps for all claims, which I'd view to be true progress.http://sandipmadan.blogspot.com/